How About (Karl)Marxville, Texas

 

Monday, July 30, 2018
12:25 PM

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The first civil war in America continues, and part of the attack plan of the treasonous Deep State that seeks to overthrow the legitimately elected government is the changing of history. Part of that is the changing of names-city names, street names, school names and any other names the Deep State feels are not reflective of their distinctive anti-Christ theology.

And so all of our history must be changed to reflect their anti-Christian bias (which of course they claim they don’t have) and all they despise must go. So what happens if they finally manage to get rid of all they loathe and they have no enemies to fight anymore? Will Nirvana or the Golden Age suddenly have arrived? Well, not hardly, because if they ever get to where they feel they have vanquished all their adversaries on the Right they will end up turning on each other over such issues as who is not far enough to the Left and they will destroy each other. That famous saying “The revolution eats its own” is not all that inaccurate. Just look at Stalin’s efforts in the Soviet Union, or, further back, the efforts of many in the French Revolution who doubted the “doctrinal purity” of some of their brethren. After we are all gone, some of their heads will be on the chopping block, or on the guillotine.

But for now, their war of cultural extermination goes on against those of us who inhabit Flyover Country–a region they thoroughly detest. And, for now, they have to have an issue to throw in the faces of the “great unwashed” that will exhibit their moral purity–and one issue they depend upon for that is the slavery issue.

So they parade forth in all their moral greatness, and in the form of Austin’s Equity Office, in Austin, Texas, where they have now decided, in their enlightened Illuminism, that the name of the city of Austin must be changed because Stephen Austin, the Father of Texas, once opposed an attempt by Mexico to ban slavery in the province of Texas. There are several other things they would like to change also because, whatever they are, they are all named after people who were slave owners. Everyone who understands the theology of the Left knows that, in their “bible” the ownership of slaves was the one unforgivable sin. Every other sin is forgivable except the one. The theology of the Left is okay with rape, murder, robbery, lying, cheating–all these are Leftist virtues–if done for causes that advance their agenda. They have no problem with slavery if Leftist governments do it, but private ownership of slaves is beyond the pale! Private ownership of anything is beyond the pale.

The Office of Equity in Austin, Texas realizes they will get some pushback, but they defended their proposals as a noble attempt to do away with “whitewashing history.” They realize public hearings will be needed to change street names and such, but “…a name change for the city would require an election in order to strike ‘Austin’ from the city’s charter and have it replaced with a new name.” Of course if they could get a bill passed in Texas to let illegal aliens and non-citizens vote, they just might bring it off. Texans need to watch out for such movements and strongly oppose them.

If they manage to get the name of Austin changed, who knows where they will go next. Could San Antonio become the new Santa Anna City or El Paso the new Engleside (for those who don’t know, Friedrich Engels was Karl Marx’s partner in crime.

For those who don’t grasp all the fine points of this argument, you need to realize one thing. A war, civil or otherwise, on your culture and heritage is a war against you and your children. Your children have a history, culture, and heritage and those who war against you and your country are trying to take that away from them! If you don’t get anything else from this article–please understand that!

For more info on this check out https:townhall.com for July 29, 2018.

Our First Civil War is a Culture War

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I continue to see articles on the internet about how we are now engaged in our second civil war, and although the folks that write most of them are sincere and present some interesting facts, I have to disagree with them on that one point.

Our first “civil war” was not  truly a civil war. It was a War of Northern Aggression to prevent Southern  independence.

I recently read a good article on https://spectator.org/americas-next-civil-war-will-be-worse-than-our-last/  It was a good article, but the author made a statement on page 2 that showed it was not a “civil war” and I doubt he even noticed. He stated, accurately, that “In the end, the war was fought over a single legal issue: whether the states that had freely ratified the Constitution to form the Union could freely leave the Union if they felt it no longer served their interests.” That comment alone takes the War of Northern Aggression out of the category of a civil war in which both sides are contending for the control of one government. That was not the case. The South had no interest in controlling the federal government—all they wanted to do was to separate themselves from it.

The author of the Spectator articles notes that: “The difference between the America of today and the America of what seems like just yesterday is that we once had a common culture” even through the War of Northern Aggression. To be sure, there were differences, even theological differences between North and South, and the author observes this, but for all of that there had been a common culture. Today, whatever commonality there had been is fast disappearing.  He notes that “Today, however, our divisions are so deep and fundamental that Americans cannot even agree on what marriage is or what a man and a woman is (which is pretty darn fundamental).” Well, it used to be fundamental until the Marxist college professors stuck their noses into it. Now it’s all up for grabs and college students are being taught “politically correct” (culturally Marxist) drivel that wouldn’t have been imagined fifty years ago except by the folks at the Frankfurt School. So our culture has been played with, twisted, and is in the  process of being turned into something no one in his right mind wants to see happen. The war on all things Confederate is part of this cultural shift. The author mentions the “lunatic self-righteousness of the Left” among whom “disagreement is bigotry to be prohibited by law or even condemned and prosecuted as treason.” He says that this is a “fire that will not easily be quenched and cannot be reached by cool waters of rational argument.” He’s right there. The Left will brook no disagreement and you cannot rationalize with them. They have an agenda, provided to them by the One World Government people who finance them and you are wasting your time trying to debate with them. All you can do is resist them with the truth and do it in such a way that you can reach that broad group of people in the middle,  most of  whom will not realize we are currently in a civil war until the storm troopers march up to their houses and demand their firearms on pain of death!

Another part of the civil war to change our culture is the concept of voting rights for non-citizens, which several liberal cities are pushing. If they get enough people to fall for that one the non-citizens who voted will end up helping to change our culture just the same  way as giving illegal immigrants the vote will end up changing our culture. That’s something else the Deep State has been pushing. Check out an article by James Murphy on https://www.thenewamerican.com for July 27th, 2018.

Think we are not involved in a civil war, even as I write this?  Check out an article by Paul Craig Roberts on https://www.lewrockwell.com for July 27th 2018. Mr. Roberts, who has followed national trends for decades, notes that: “The evidence is overwhelming that CIA director John Brennan, FBI director James Comey, Robert Mueller, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and the Democratic National Committee are engaged in high treason against the American people and the President of the United States and are actively engaged in a plot to overthrow the President of the United States. Yet the traitorous intelligence officials  retain their high security clearances and have not been indicted, arrested,  and put on trial for high treason.” We have a culture in Washington that is totally okay with this. Civil war against the President and the American people is perfectly alright—as long as the denizens of the Deep State win.

That is the culture that persists in our present civil war—our first civil war. Will the American people be awakened enough to realize this is a civil war they may end up having to fight in—and I’m not just talking about using guns. That’s a good question.

The Abolitionists Were Really Globalists

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

We’ve all read about the Abolitionists and about their supposed noble endeavors to “free” the slaves. Most of what we read about these people would lead us to believe that’s the only thing they were all about—that freeing the slaves was their total agenda and once that was done, like old soldiers, they just sort of “faded away” never to be  heard from again. Suffice it to say that narrative is slightly less than accurate—for obvious reasons. We are not supposed to be aware of what else  the Abolitionists were involved in, lest we be alerted to what their game really was. The Abolitionists were really the globalists of the 19th century—and some of them were among the foremost terrorists of the 19th century.

Although, in their day, they were much more “up front” about their objectives, our present day “historians” have seen fit to drastically tone this down. These people are treated as heroes and compared to today’s Pro-Life Movement, which is a  terrible disservice to the Pro-Life Movement. Most of your pro-life folks are Christian oriented, and that’s the main reason they do what they do. The same can’t be said for the Abolitionists. Many of them were apostates and many were deep into the Spiritualist Movement.

William Lloyd Garrison, one of the  leading lights among the Abolitionists was quite plain about the agenda of the movement when he said: “The motto of our banner has been, from the commencement of our moral warfare, ‘our country is the world—our countrymen are all mankind.’ We trust that will be our only epitaph.” That definitely sounds like a totally globalist worldview. He went on to  say that, next to the overthrow of slavery, the cause of “peace” would command his attention, and  he ended up biy saying that: “As our cause is universal emancipation—to redeem women as well as men from a servile to an equal  condition,–we shall go for the rights of women to their utmost extent.” If you didn’t know better you’d think Garrison and Karl Marx had the same script writer. And then, on second thought…

We are never told that the Abolitionists had a strong leaning toward socialism. Many of them were Unitarians, and the Unitarians had the same leaning.

Enter the International Workingmen’s Association 1864-1872, in the United States. This group had ties to a group in London with the same name that was commonly known as the “First International.” Wikipedia has noted that: “The International made its way to American soil in 1866 when Italian socialist  Cesare Orsini, brother of an attempted assassin of Napoleon III,  arrived in the United States and attempted to organize an American section. Orsini managed to win the support of a number of a handful of ‘émigré’ socialists in New York City, in addition to gaining a sympathetic hearing from several prominent political figures,  including newspaper editor Horace Greeley, abolitionist orator Wendell Phillips, and radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner.” No matter what other positions any of the three above-mentioned men here held, they were all radical Abolitionists.

Supposedly the International started out  as a non-revolutionary union organization, but that charade didn’t hold too long, especially with members like Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Such men saw this organization as “a tool for the winning of state power from the bourgeoisie.”

Interesting to remember that the London branch of this group is the one that sent Abraham Lincoln a congratulatory letter after he had won a second term as president.

Another article http://pentracks.com/2016/03/illuminati-connections-to-unitarian-universalist-church-29-mar-16 gives a little more information about where some of the Abolitionists were really coming from. It says, in part, Illuminized Freemasonry intended to change the world by revolution. The book Occult Theocracy gives a good detailed background how so many of these revolutionary groups connected to the Occult Theocratic leadership (aka the Illuminati). She describes in detail the Illuminati member and revolutionist Giuseppe Mazzini. The Illuminati not only created revolutions throughout Europe, but wanted to split the U.S.A. Mazzini helped create the American Civil War by working with a secret group of 6 American UU ministers, who had created a secret group  that they called the Bird Club. The Bird Club was created to create a revolutionary type of war in the U.S.A. Gerrit Smith of the Bird Club appears to have been an Illum. Mmbr. Charles Sumner, a member of the Bird Club and a student of Freemasonry & revolution, made personal visits to occultic revolutionists in Europe, including Mazzini…” Gerrit Smith was also an Abolitionist and we see Mr. Sumner making yet another appearance. You can see that Abolitionists are scattered throughout     these revolutionary socialist groups.

And let us not forget the group called The Secret Six, that funded terrorist John Brown’s bloodbath at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. All of those men were radical Abolitionists, and one of them was the above mentioned Gerrit Smith. Another was Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister who was “always ready to invest money in treason.” Incidentally, Rev. Higginson lived on into the 20th century and helped found the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Of igginsonH  Higginson Rev. R. J. Rushdoony noted  in The Nature of the American System that “On Higginson, as on other Unitarians of his era, the influences of French Revolutionary     thought  and English Fabianism  were extensive.”     This socialist mindset and its strong globalist tendencies is where your radical Abolitionists were really coming from and, as you can see, there was lots more involved than just “freeing the slaves.” All that was was a means to an end, but the real agenda stretched far beyond it.

 

Some Hidden (in plain sight) American History

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The first place I ever read anything about Benjamin Bonneville was in a historical fiction novel by Janice Hold Giles, published back in 1968, called The Great Adventure.

Mrs. Giles did not have lots of information on Bonneville except to note that he was an army officer, traveling in the Far West during the fur trading days and she seemed to have some questions about an army officer traveling around out there on his own with no apparent military responsibilities.

Recently, I watched a video on the internet of a speech given by Arthur Thomson, CEO of the John “Birch Society. It was an excellent video, one I would reccomend. The title of it is What you are not supposed to know about America’s founding. I found it on https://duckduckgo.com search engine, something else I would recommend. Mr. Thompson has done a lot of historical homework about the country’s early days and not all of what he has found makes for fun reading. And though it’s not fun, it’s probably necessary. If we don’t understand our history we will never know what to do about our future. Whoever controls your history also controls your future.

In his video Mr. Thompson mentioned several people who had been part of the Illuminati in Europe. One noted one was Nicolas De Bonneville. Many of you have heard the name Bonneville before–the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah; there’s a Bonneville County in Idaho; and even the Pontiac Car Company  named one of their models after him several years ago.

You’d be surprised at how much stuff there is about the Illuminati out there on the internet–in plain sight! Of course you have to realize that some of it is propaganda to cover the true intent of the group.

But I came across one site that was interesting, https://illuminatiofbavaria.wordpress.com/article/nicolas-de-bonneville- that contained some interesting stuff. The article stated: “The best means to understand the French Revolution of 1789 is to study the importance of Nicolas de Bonneville and the Cercle Social organization he led with 8,000 members…James Billington, the U.S. Librarian of Congress wrote in Fire in the Minds of Men  (1980) (2007 reprint) at page 12 that Nicolas de Bonneville (1760-1828) of Paris was one of the ‘founding fathers’ of the modern revolutionary tradition’. Since October 1789, Bonneville was the founder and leader of the Cercle Social–a publishing house at Paris operated by a masonic-style secret society.” It seems that Bonneville had no problem with admitting his allegiance with the Bavarian Illuminati founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, supposedly on May 1st of that year. Ever wonder why the Communists always celebrate the first day of May with all their parades? Now you know.

There’s even a book out there by Bonneville, L’Espirit des Religions which has been translated from one he wrote in 1792. Supposedly this book clarifies the “True Illuminati’s political aims.” I’d never even heard of this book until I started researching for this article, so I can’t tell you what’s in it, except to note that Karl Marx honored Bonneville’s “fraternal order and printing house as having commenced  the (modern) revolutionary movement.” Enough said.

Interestingly enough, Nicolas Bonneville’s son, Benjamin, was born in France and eventually graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in just two years. So here we have the son of a top Illuminati member attending West Point! His and his mother’s journey from  France was paid for by Thomas Paine, who Arthur Thompson tells us  in  his video, slept with Bonneville’s mother. Thompson also informs us that Paine was involved with the Illuminati. And he noted that Paine, the author of Common Sense was a truly radical writer and that Common Sense was the only decent thing he ever wrote. He said that, after that book, you could toss the rest of what Paine wrote in the trash can. Paine was an ardent supporter of the French Revolution and stridently anti-Christian. No one for your children to  emulate!

Most of this kind of information will never appear in your history books. You can find it on your own by digging for it if someone points you in the right direction. You do have to wonder, if the Bonneville so many things in this country were named for had a father who was a prime mover in the Illuminati, where was his son politically–and spiritually? And how much association over the years did he have with anti-Christian Thomas Paine?

In the first book I mentioned in this article, Mrs. Giles’ book,  I must have noted something  about Bonneville somewhere back along the line,, because, under the author’s note in the front of the book I had written: “Bonneville had Illuminati connections so you have to wonder what he was doing in the West at that time.” I still think that’s a legitimate query.

How much of our history that we are never told about had Illuminati-type people inserting themselves in there to do damage to further someone’s internationalist agenda? And is some of what they did responsible for some of the problems we have today?

 

Karl Marx—Deadbeat Daddy

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

On May 5th of this year many celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. You’d think from some of the articles  I read, mostly on the internet, that  Marx was a daring, bold economic visionary who had come up with a new economic system that proved to be a boon to mankind. Of course that’s the line today’s current crop of Marxist professors have been programmed to parrot. Unfortunately they parrot it to a whole batch of college students who, thanks to inadequate economic education at the high school level, really don’t have a clue and if the professor is good enough he can,  as they say, “baffle them with his BS.”

Supposedly, Marx’s economic vision was put forth for the benefit of the  poor working  people. That that idea was a total charade has been proven by the millions of poor working people that have  perished under various Marxist regimes around the  world. Anyone who believes that hogwash truly has to have spiritual and economic blinders on.

Steve Byas, writing on https://www.thenewamerican.com for May 5th wrote: “While Marx is certainly a central figure in the history of communism, he was by no means the lone originator of communism. And his background demonstrates  that communism did not  spring from the toiling masses of the working class. The reality is that Marx, like almost all socialist revolutionaries, was a product of academia and self-proclaimed intellectual secret societies.” It has been reported that Marx didn’t write The Communist Manifesto on his  own, but rather he wrote it for a group called The League of the Just  (Illuminati) and his name does not even appear on the cover of the first edition.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, noted that Charles A. Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune hired Marx to write columns for the paper, which was owned and published by utopian socialist Horace Greeley. From 1851 to 1862 Marx contributed about 500 articles to Greeley’s paper—his associate Friedrich Engles probably wrote about a quarter of them. He was more well versed in English than Marx was, and besides, Marx was a bit on the lazy side. It seems, though, that he had no trouble taking pay for the articles Engels wrote.

Leopold Schwarzschild, in his book The Red Prussian published in 1947 by Charles Scribner’s Sons noted of Marx that: “In all this there was nothing to indicate that from now on collections, subscriptions and charity were to be this brilliant young man’s sole means  of support. Nobody could have imagined it, and yet so it was. With the collections and subscriptions of 1844 he embarked on a life which was never again, in all the long decades, to have any other basis.” In other words, for all his supposed economic prowess, Marx and his family mostly lived on charity—and a lot of that came from his friend Engels.

Recently I ran across an article from 2010 on https://hubpages.com entitled Karl Marx Lived in Filth and Neglected His Children. The article observed that: “When an educated man chooses to live in poverty , and raise his children in poverty, that is abuse. When Marx and his wife and children were living in London, a visitor wrote a description of  their lifestyle in their 3-room flat. Not only did the Marx children have to endure the hunger of  poverty, they were raised in filth, or what his friend described as ‘a pig-sty’….Both Marx and his wife came from comfortable homes, hers more prominent. Her father was a Prussian baron. And she, Jenny, was an educated woman when she married Marx. Together they had seven children. Four of those children died young. Only three survived to achieve adulthood. Every biography of Marx reports that his four children who died  young died because of the poverty they had to endure…Marx occasionally wrote articles for newspapers and he wrote his long papers and books full of his philosophies about the ‘struggle’ of workers, but he never worked a day in his life”

He also fathered an illegitimate son, but you don’t hear much about that little indiscretion. The hub pages article observed, in closing, that “By any standard, Marx’ life was a failure, as a husband,  as a father, as a provider.” But, hey, Marx didn’t have time for any of that bourgeois stuff.  He and his fellow socialist revolutionaries/terrorists had  an agenda to push onto the world. They just didn’t have any time available for being good fathers and good providers and good husbands. That was for the plebes, not them. They were above all that!

So all those useful idiots that want to enthuse over Karl Marx should take a step back and realize that, when push came to shove, Marx was little more than just another Deadbeat Dad!

The Marxist President, the War Criminal, and Slave Reparations

By Al Benson Jr.

There was an article posted on www.thefederalistpapers.org  for April 19th  about how our Marxist president wants to punish all Americans (at least all white Americans) for slavery. I have been watching over the years as various race-baiters have sought to find a way to scam more Americans out of what little money they may have left. The slavery reparations game is just one more Marxist “redistribute the wealth” campaign. Does anyone honestly think that any of the ordinary black folks in this country will ever see a thin dime of “reparations” money if they manage to pull this off? Hardly! The Je$$e Jacksons and Al Sharptons and their organizations will be the ones to benefit from this scam, not ordinary black folks, so let’s don’t try to kid anyone as to what this is really all about.

The Federalist Papers article was written by Russ Helper, and he noted: “Every decade or so, the radical left mentions paying reparations to African-Americans for pre-Civil War slavery. The idea is that even though slavery was abolished over 150 years ago, many in the black community are still suffering from its effects. But now a report has come to light that the President is seriously considering forcing all Americans to pay reparations to descendants of slaves.”

Now I have to admit, I’m not a real big fan of that idea. My family didn’t come here until the early 1880s, from England and Scotland, so they didn’t own any slaves before the War of Northern Aggression—but, then, I forgot. They were white, so they were automatically guilty of “racism” and therefore, I, who am white, should feel guilty over that (I don’t. Sorry!) and I should be willing to shell out big bucks for slaves my family never owned to someone who has never been a slave. That’s the way this game is played in case you hadn’t figured that out yet.

So now the next installment of the reparations game is in full swing. Charles Payne, who is black, and works for Fox News has predicted that we will soon see an apology for slavery from the Red (White) House, and also the possibility of “massive sums of money doled out in reparations for slavery.” He says “There’s going to be a major push to get cash, and I’m talking LOTS of cash.”

All the slaves are dead, as are all the slaveowners, so how will Obama justify trying to pilfer the wallets of present day Americans with his reparations scheme? Well, he’s checked that out, and Mr. Helper’s article noted: “He cites a special field order from Union General William Tecumseh Sherman in which he confiscated 400,000 acres of land along the Atlantic Coast for division into the 40 acre lots to house the tens of thousands of freed slave refugees who had joined his march. Sherman’s intentions are disputed, though many believe it was meant to be only a temporary fix for an immediate problem. According to Payne, that order will be seen as an unfulfilled promise by the federal government, and that it could very well be a driving force behind the push for reparations…On the surface, some people could make the argument that this is only just and the right thing to do, but is it really? The truth is that 90% of those living in the south prior to the Civil War never owned slaves. Why should any of their descendants be forced to pay for something their ancestors didn’t do?” Because they are white, that’s why.

The special field order under discussion here is Special Field Orders Number 15. According to Michael Fellman in his book Citizen Sherman, “Sherman then recalled that he had then sat down and drafted his Special Field Orders Number 15, which he issued after (Edwin) Stanton had edited them carefully. Other historians have stressed Stanton’s role in the authorship, as well as that of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War. Whatever their exact genesis, these orders were an extremely radical proposal for redistribution of land confiscated from slaveholders to the newly freed slaves…’abandoned’ plantations (from which the owners had fled on the approach of Union troops)  were to be distributed in plots of ‘not more than forty acres of tillable ground’ to black heads of families’.” Fellman continued: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war…The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be distributed to Northern white colonists.” And Sherman continued: “…it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population…If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place…Many people with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.”

So it would appear that Comrade Obama and his socialist cadre plan to use this approach as their excuse to gouge the American public for reparations money. However, is this claim really legitimate?  Fellman noted on page 169 of his book that: “After the war, Sherman would claim that he intended his Special Field Orderss Number 15 only as an emergency war measure, and he did not protest when Andrew Johnson revoked it in 1866. So if Andrew Johnson revoked it that means it no longer had any binding authority after his revocation. Of course Obama and his minions have not bothered to mention Johnson’s revocation—at least not that I’ve read about and you can bet the farm that if the “news” media is aware of it they are not about to mention it either.

This whole scenario aptly illustrates why I call those people Yankee/Marxists. The Northern political and military industrial complex had a decided Marxist bent to it even that early.

In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx, writing at the behest of the League of the Just  (Illuminati) listed ten points that Communists should employ in their seizure of various countries. Number One was: “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” Number Four was: “Confiscation of the property of all émigrés and rebels.” So, basically what Sherman sought to do in confiscating thousands of acres and redistributing them to ex-slaves was an exercise in pure Marxism—but that wouldn’t bother Comrade Obama. That’d be right up his alley, just the like the reparations scam will be right up his alley—redistribution of the wealth is another Marxist tenet and you can bet the wealth always gets “redistributed” to their friends, their corporate fascist buddies.

I don’t know if he will try to push something like this through Congress, although many of them wouldn’t be averse to it, or if he will try to do it through yet another “executive order.” The gutless wonders in Congress, in both parties, would probably love to give him this, but there is an election coming up next year, farce though it is and some of these turkeys do want to get voted back in so they can keep feeding at the trough. But keep your eyes open either way. This Marxist scheme needs to be resisted.

More Admissions to Early Socialism In America

By Al Benson Jr.

Those who have finally been forced to admit that there was socialism and Marxism prevalent in this country before the advent of FDR have done so quite reluctantly. Before Donnie Kennedy and I wrote our book Lincoln’s Marxists several years ago this was a subject that was generally ignored. There was information out there before we wrote the book, but it was pretty generally submerged and the professional “historians” who wrote books dedicated to the Lincoln Cult preferred it that way. Our book, by God’s grace, helped to bring some of it to the surface and you can find more out there now than you could before we wrote the book.

I just ran across an article on www.u-s-history.com entitled “Socialism in America.” It gives a brief history of socialism in this country and, interestingly enough, it starts off with: “The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began, such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters in 1856, and Iron Moulders’ Union of North America in 1859.” Have any of you ever read history books that mentioned any  “Marxian socialist unions” at any point in our history, let alone that early? Over the years I’ve heard some say that the labor unions in this country were all communist. Can you begin to see why some folks thought that way? Who knew that you had such groups in this country even before the start of the War of Northern Aggression? And how many of those Forty-Eighters who fought for Lincoln’s “holy cause” may have belonged to those unions? Joseph Weydemeyer,  who was a personal friend of Karl Marx, and who had been a Union officer during  the War has hailed in a Communist newspaper as a “trade union organizer” among his many other dubious talents, so you do have to wonder.

Recently, I read comments by John Nichols, who writes for The Nation magazine, which is hardly a publication that has the endorsement of those on the right. Someone was interviewing Mr. Nichols and he made a couple revelatory comments. He said: “To give you an example, Eugene Victor Debs frequently referenced Paine and Lincoln as folks who had inspired him toward socialism. So it’s not that this is something that we have just discovered, but it is something that has been sort of lost in recent decades.” Interesting comment. I don’t doubt for a minute that this sort of information has “been lost” in recent decades because it is a very inconvenient truth that, for the political left in this country, in both major political parties,  is better off forgotten or ignored.

And Nichols emphasizes this again when he says: “So again this is not hidden history—it’s there, it’s findable, but it’s not a history that has been emphasized. More significantly you bring up Lincoln, and the history of Lincoln is absolutely fascinating, because when you go back to the founding of the Republican Party, there is simply no question that the party was founded by a broad array of folks from many different ideological perspectives and backgrounds,  but some of the founders of the Republican Party, in fact key founders, people who called the initial meetings, were socialists and communists. A friend of Karl Marx was one of the key players in the founding of the Republican Party. That is not a debatable point—the history is there—but it is something that has not been emphasized, it’s almost been pushed aside.” Mr. Nichols’ comments here are quite accurate. This is truth that has been purposely ignored, swept under the historical rug, de-emphasized—however you want to say it. How do you think it would look in young folks’ history books if the fact were admitted that socialists and communists played a large part in the founding of the Republican Party? With truth like that floating around, how could Republican candidates go to the public during elections claiming to be the “party of small government?” With truth like that available, they would, if they were honest, have a admit that they were the party of total government and that, in that capacity, the Democrats were only laboring to catch up to them  in that quest.

Judging by what I have read of Mr. Nichols’ comments here and there, I don’t believe I would be comfortable with his political ideology. However, I have to admit that, in this case, he has done us a real service by noting these facts. I wish we had had this quote when we wrote Lincoln’s Marxists because it’s a real gem. His comments were published in www.thecoli.com  in November, 2013, over two years after Donnie Kennedy and I had the second edition of Lincoln’s Marxists published.

Those who still, ignorantly or otherwise, claim the Republican Party is the party of conservatives, patriots, and “small government” should start doing the homework to discern just how accurate their assertions really are. Some of them would be shocked, but they might be shocked into starting to do some real digging to determine if all they have been told is truth or farce. At that point they could begin to inform others and begin to position the Republican Establishment where it really belongs—in the total government column!

Republicans No Different In 2015 Than In 1860

By Al Benson Jr.

I continue to be amazed at the number of patriotic and “conservative” sites on the Internet that express shock that the Republican Party seems to be playing along with Comrade Obama’s socialist agenda for this country. They seem to feel that the Republican Party is some great bastion of conservatism that will step up to do battle with the “liberal Democrats” in the name of God and country. Folks, that outdated notion is hogwash. Get over it! It has never been that way and it never will be. The Republican Party is almost as far to the left as today’s Democratic Party is. They are just better at hiding it. This is nothing new.

In our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, Walter D. Kennedy and I noted, on page 48, that: “The very foundation for modern-day liberalism/socialism was laid by the many and various utopian ideologues of the nineteenth century. The fact that these utopian socialists/communists found Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party to be objects worthy of their zeal and efforts speaks volumes as to why post-Appomattox America has adopted most, if not all of the early American socialist/communist goals. Universal suffrage was a dream of every socialist/communist movement in Europe and America; even Karl Marx spoke in favor of universal suffrage. The same can be said about a progressive income tax, abolition of the rights of inheritance, a system of national education, centralized banking and many other such socialist/communist measures.” And on page 50 we also noted: “The thought of Lincoln as the first American president to have had a communist sympathizer working in a key part of his administration is, and should be, shocking to all Americans. Charles Dana, who visited Marx in 1848, was an associate of Horace Greeley and an early convert to the communistic Fourierist movement. Dana served as assistant secretary of war under Edwin Stanton during the Lincoln administration, thus becoming the first communist, or at least the first communist sympathizer, to serve in a high position within the government of the United States.” And this was in a Republican administration and it was only the beginning. Then there were the socialists, notably Carl Schurz among them, who helped to write the Republican Party Platform in 1860.

There are some who inform us that the Republican Party is the party of small government. Though many of them may be sincere, they are sincerely in error—grave error, and we shouldn’t believe it. Walter Kennedy has also observed, in his recently released book Rekilling Lincoln that: “While often characterized as the homely rail-splitting lawyer from backwoods Illinois, Lincoln was in reality a high-pressure, well-connected corporate lawyer of the largest corporation in America during the early part of the nineteenth century. Although Lincoln is often depicted as a meek and humble friend of the common people and the downtrodden, in actuality Lincoln had a close association with numerous railroad barons. These railroad barons were some of the richest and most powerful men in America at that time.” Both Lincoln and his mentor, Henry Clay, were men who believed in the use of governmental power to protect special industries. And Donnie Kennedy has noted that: “…this system establishes a means whereby well-placed persons could leverage their position in government and finance for personal advantage.” Does that sound any different from today? Republicans and Democrats alike play this game and one hand washes the other.

For those still under the illusion that the Republican Establishment will combat Comrade Obama’s rampant socialism all you have to do to disabuse yourselves of that fantasy is to read an article that appeared on http://townhall.com for March 7, 2015, which was written by John Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins presents some very cogent points folks need to begin to consider. He says: “How do you think Republicans would have done in the 2014 elections if they had told the truth about what they intended to do when they took over the Senate? What if they had campaigned on working hand-in-hand with Obama to enact his illegal alien amnesty while supporting his budget priorities, confirming a new Attorney General who thinks everything Obama is doing is fine and promised they would do nothing while he illegally bans ammo, cripples the Internet, and lets the EPA run wild? Republicans are even gearing up to SAVE OBAMACARE if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies…What’s left unsaid is that he’s only able to do it because Republicans in the House and Senate are standing by impotently and allowing him to do whatever he wants.” Hawkins accuses the Republicans of “rank cowardice” in all their confrontations with Obama. Up to now, he’s called it right, but here I have to disagree with him. It’s not cowardice on their part. The problem is that the Republicans are just as much socialists as Obama is and they really have no problem with any of what he is doing. Doesn’t that thought give you the warm fuzzies? We have a Congress, no matter which party is in power, that really has no problem with socialism and they will do whatever it takes to protect Obama’s socialist agenda, all the while loudly complaining about how much they are opposed to it. Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, your names are really Republican and Democrat, and you both work together to give this country the socialism most of us don’t want—but we’ll get it from you anyway, no matter the party label.

The legislative branch of government has sold out to the executive branch, and all of this will soon be “legitimized” by the judicial branch when they again okay Obamacare as they have done in the past, and again, the supposed system of “checks and balances” we are supposed to have with the Constitution has gone by the boards. It has gone by the boards so much in my lifetime I am beginning to wonder if it really ever existed except on paper.

We have got to begin to rethink the fable that the Republican and Democratic Parties are different than one another, that they have different worldviews and goals. It just ain’t so. They both have a One World socialist viewpoint and that’s where they are both trying to take us. You can’t depend on the Republican Party or its minions to combat Obama’s socialism/Marxism. The Republican Party exists to lead you into it without your being aware of it.

Thanks to our government “education system” the average American citizen is being rendered unfit to govern himself and he is being recreated as nothing more than a mindless zombie who is just one more cog in the government/socialist wheel. And as long as you continue to “educate” your kids in this system all you are doing is helping them to create junior socialist cogs for their One World wheel. We have got to start thinking outside of that box. We don’t have much time left. Maybe we had best start asking the Lord to remove the scales from our eyes so we can begin to see what we need to do.

Was the War of Northern Aggression a Marxist Revolution?

by Al Benson Jr.

The title of this article is asked as a rhetorical question, as Donnie Kennedy and I have already dealt in depth with this subject in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. But it does not hurt to ask it again, as many folks have not only not read our book, but they have never been confronted with some of the information that is now out there dealing with this subject. The leftist radicals in the early Republican Party were not bashful in giving away their socialist tendencies when they commented on the South and their plans for it and its people after the War.

James M. McPherson, who is by no means my favorite “historian” has dealt with some of this in an Internet article–Some Thoughts on the Civil War as the Second Revolution. McPherson seems to enjoy dealing with the subject of the War as if it were, indeed, a revolution, only he quotes the people that portray the Southerners as the revolutionaries. Needless to say, it was really the other way around. But then, a standard Marxist tactic is “condemn others and elevate yourself.”

McPherson noted the comments of future president James Garfield while he was in Congress, and he noted that: “During the first three of his seventeen years in Congress, Garfield was one of the most radical of the radical Republicans. He continued to view the Civil War and Reconstruction as a revolution that must wipe out all traces of the ancient regime in the South. In his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on January 28, 1864, he called for the confiscation of the land of Confederate planters and the redistribution of this land among the freed slaves and white Unionists in the South.” It hardly needs to be stated that such a concept is in total agreement with what Karl Marx advocated in the Communist Manifesto. This position was in total agreement with the first and fourth planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx–sorry, I meant Garfield–then sought to excuse such Marxist confiscation on the premise that this had been done during our War for Independence with land that had belonged to the Tories. Of course a lot of the Tories had left the country, many going to Canada, and so much of their land was vacant anyway. And Garfield went on: “The leaders of this rebellion must be executed or banished from the republic…” So, was Garfield advocating mass executions of Southern leaders? Or at least their banishment so the federal government could then control the land that had been theirs? This was the same attitude as that displayed by General Sherman regarding Southerners–and it was still consistent with Marx.

Land confiscation was a cardinal tenet of Marxism and it was also a favorite among the Northern elite. In his book Citizen Sherman, Michael Fellman observed: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war. As early as August 24, 1862, John Sherman had written his brother, ‘If we can’t depend on the loyalty of the white men of the South, I would give the land to the blacks or colonize a new set (of northern whites).’ The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be redistributed to Northern white colonists…When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population…If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place…Many people with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.” Almost makes you wonder if such is a veiled threat.

And Sherman made it quite plain that he would not hesitate to practice what we today call psychological warfare on the Southern people. According to Fellman, “His army would not inflict military defeat on a Confederate army, but intentionally humiliating destruction on a peaceful, cultivated Southern landscape and her people.” Lots easier to fight mostly unarmed Southern civilians than it is Confederate soldiers that can shoot back. But this is the way Marxists fight a war. Almost makes you wonder if Lenin took lessons from Sherman.

Radical abolitionist (and Unitarian) Wendell Phillips was among the most outspoken. In his mind he insisted that the War “is primarily a social revolution. The war can only be ended by annihilating that Oligarchy which formed and rules the South and makes the war-by annihilating a state of society. The whole social system of the Gulf States must be taken to pieces.” And dear old Thaddeus Stevens, that “gentle giant” of the radical abolitionists said they had to “treat this war as a radical revolution” and “reconstruction” then needed to “revolutionize Southern institutions, habits and manners…The foundations of their institutions…must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain.” So, as you can see by the statements made, the real revolutionaries in this war were not the Southern people or their leaders, but were, instead, those among the Northern elite who had imbibed the doctrines of socialism that became so clearly apparent when they spoke. What they have been describing here is nothing less than what the Communists in Russia and China did when they took over those countries–cultural genocide. Change the culture and make it totally unrecognizable to those who had lived under the old Christian culture. For “those people” the war and “reconstruction” were nothing more than exercises in Cultural Marxism–the 19th century variety.

Back in 2012, Andre M. Fleche wrote a book called The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict. I haven’t yet read it so I can’t comment all that much on it, but Fleche does deal with the Forty-eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I deal with in Lincoln’s Marxists. A review by Jarret Ruminski (University of Calgary) noted that: “Fleche supports his argument for the importance of 1848 by highlighting the significant roles European revolutionaries played in shaping American nationalist debates in the years leading up to the Civil War, and showing their continued influence after its outbreak.” So Mr. Fleche also recognizes how influential the Forty-eighters in this country were before the War and how their revolutionary influence affected what went on.

More and more, the general public, and especially Southerners, need to be much more aware of just how (from a socialist perspective) the North was influenced by the Forty-eighters and how that influence affected not only the War and “reconstruction” but how it has affected everything that has gone on since then.

This demonstrates that “reconstruction” never truly ended in the South, or anywhere else in the country, but is, in fact, in operation today. Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States” is all part and parcel of it. The old (Christian) culture has to be gotten rid of and a new one instituted. If you can say anything about Obama, you can truthfully say that he is a “change agent” for the New World Order, and he has taken many of his lessons in that area from Abraham Lincoln and from “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

“Father Abraham” Thought Secession Was Great For the Forty-Eighters

by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860, according to Abraham Lincoln, the Southern states did not possess the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln’s view of the Union was that it had actually predated the Constitution, and that, once in the Union, a state basically had no right not granted to it by Big Brother in Washington. Although he would not have couched it in exactly those terms, that was where he was really coming from. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt with this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

However, in light of his own remarks, Mr. Lincoln’s anti-secession sentiments were very selectively applied, just like the edicts of the present Regime are today. Lincoln was opposed to Southern states seceding from the Union to preserve their Christian heritage and the rights of the individual states according to the Constitution and he was also opposed to their secession because they paid the major portion of the country’s tariffs and to have them gone would cost the Northern states big tariff bucks that the South had heretofore paid. In Lincoln’s mind, these were not good enough reasons for secession, but he did view secession as a viable option if the reasons for it were chaos and revolution.

On January 12, 1848, Lincoln, while in Congress, made a speech in which he stated the following: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right–a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. Supposedly, Lincoln was applying this to Texas in 1848, after their late unpleasantness with Mexico. Even were such the case, Lincoln should have been honor-bound to recognize, for other states, what he seems to have recognized for Texas.

However, with my suspicious mind, my personal contention is that, while Lincoln may have referred these remarks to Texas in a secondary way, his prime target for these sentiments was the socialist revolutionary movement that was soon to erupt in several countries in Europe in early 1848. That was the year the socialist and communist revolutionaries plunged Europe into chaos with bloody revolts in several countries. This activity began shortly after Lincoln gave his secession speech in Congress.

The carefully crafted persona of “Honest Abe the railsplitter,” the hayseed from the Illinois prairies, is one that has been carefully nurtured by our politically correct, Cultural Marxist, historic spin doctors. They definitely can’t afford to let us know what “Father Abraham” really was, a sharp, politically astute lawyer and lobbyist for the big railroads, as well as a thoroughly pragmatic politician with his own leftward-leaning agenda.

Lincoln was hardly the country bumpkin that biographers and “historians” have made him out to be. He was conscious of world events and had his own ideas and opinions regarding them. He was acquainted with what went on in Europe. By the same token, many in Europe kept tabs on what was happening over here. Lincoln’s 1848 speech in favor of secession (although the historians won’t admit that’s what it was) was well-timed to give European socialists the kind of American support for their endeavors that many of them could only have dreamed about. It let them know that there were American politicians that supported their socialist agenda.

In his book Lincoln And The Emperors A. R. Tyrner-Trynauer stated on page 32: The sympathy of the United States in general and Lincoln’s Republicans in particular for the revolutionaries of Europe was a long-established fact. That was written in 1962. More recently, in 1991, historian James McPherson, revealing a bit more about Lincoln, told us that: Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutiion of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions–Karl Marx–praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘a single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world’. Look at and analyze what McPherson is telling you there. The “reconstruction of a social world” is supposed to be the death knell for the old Christian South, for private property, and of real Christian culture. That’s what it was really all about. Why else do you suppose that, when the Northern radicals (socialists) in Congress sought to destroy the culture of the South they called that program “Reconstruction?” That was Marx’s terminology.

Worth noting again, as Donnie Kennedy and I stress in our book, is the fact that socialist revolutionaries from the 1848 European debacle flocked to join the Union armies as the War of Northern Aggression got under way. Lincoln had the verbal support of Marx and Engels, as well as that of the Russian revolutionary Bakunin. Socialist and communist personalities ended up with high-ranking positions in Lincoln’s armies and also ended up in positions of influence in journalism, education, politics, and the list goes on. The fact that European socialists so lopsidedly supported the Union cause should give people pause to consider the true nature of the Union cause. Was Karl Marx really concerned about Lincoln freeing an “enchained race” of blacks? Hardly! Marx’s own personal comments show that he was prejudiced against blacks, and so was Lincoln for that matter. If you don’t think so, scrounge through the Lincoln Douglas Debates and see what you find. For both Marx and Lincoln the blacks were nothing more than cannon fodder for the socialist world revolution–and nothing has changed since then.

In the final analysis you have to ask, were Lincoln and Marx really that far apart? Such a question today will, no doubt, shock some tender souls who have been taught that Lincoln was, in effect, a secular messiah–the apotheosis of a mere man into a “god.” But, then, today, some feel that way about Obama. A noted television journalist, awhile back, said of her and her colleagues regarding Obama, “We thought he was the messiah.” I can only assume, at this point, that she has had her rude awakening. That same rude awakening needs to take place in regard to “Father Abraham” and his socialist and communist friends in the early Republican Party (and in the same party today along with the Democrats).